65 and 70. it would be some lesser amount of that number. because we offer the opportunity to sell, some will not. the dye and represents a monthly financial benefits that some people don't want to lose. >> i can see for the benefit of serving that same retirement interest that we talked about before, people that are 65 and over or people that of become disabled, the opportunity to further this pilot. leader recognized, and i said with some doubt either way. i want to be deferential to the staff and understand the considerations that have gone into this. beyond that, we need to recognize that this is a pilot program and that we will have, in a matter of a few meetings, a

permanent program that we can implement and i would urge that we look forward to that in the limit but while the project. >> the timeline you're suggesting changes the view of this. a few months is quite a different matter. it seems to me that stability is really important. i think we're very close. >> i want to make sure that everybody is clear. i think there are people in this industry that don't want to be here. that is very clear to me. i want those people out had to be able to buy their way out or sell their way out.

i want people who are committed to the industry, committed to serving the public, because that is what i am concerned about. the people that want to get out, let them get out. and there are a number of people that can do that. i do not think that putting any lead on the console and who can buy does any good. i would like to see a permanent program that allows whoever wants to get out to get out. >> i don't want to dwell on his point, but i agree that this was supposed to be a pilot program. you're telling me the pilot program would be in effect for a few more weeks, basically. and you will turn around and

have a permanent program in place. doesn't it make sense to put through all of these changes when you're going to turn around and implement a permanent program? >> it is not looking to buy time parameter. it is when we get through the medallions that are part of the pilot program. so we have gotten through the privately sold medallions of any buyers willing to sell at this point. excuse me, and the sellers. and we have also run out of medallions that were in the possession of the mta. we have no more to sell except that we continue, under the pilot program, we remain with the obligation of giving 25 more medallions to the list and we can sell about 25 more. we have sold about 30, and we have given away about 30.

the pilot program will continue until those medallions that come to us through death or revocation meet that 60 and 60 requirement. there is no time limit. it will just continue until it runs its course. meanwhile, we have probably over 1000 taxi drivers that are eager and willing to purchase, and have no more medallions to sell. one of the things that begin this discussion, the people that have become disabled since the pilot program opportunity closed, we want to allow those people to exit the industry before the conditions make life very difficult. >> a couple people referenced we could use 100 new cabs today are

500. what is your take all that? dodge that is a loaded question. >> if we increased demand for taxis by making them more reliable, it is a circular thing. if you call a taxi and you know what is going to arrive, you're going to leave your car at home because it is getting more and more expensive and unpleasant to try to park. so if you can rely on that service, you will use that service. i believe that if we change the culture into one that is more of a taxi culture, we could use 500 more taxis. you can't put 500 new taxes on the street immediately, first of all. but i think we could use more, especially with america's cup coming up.

i won't talk about it because it is not the agenda, but there are other options available that we can explore in the near term. >> by the way, we are in the process of looking into this more scientifically to get a precise answer. that answer will be coming back soon speech to the fact that we a permanent system for the medallions in place so that it is in place and before we start adding cabs if that is what is going to happen which firmly believe is what is going happen. my personal view on this, i would not scream and cry if we didn't extend to the pilot program at all except maybe to drivers that have become disabled, but i understand the staff proposal is to expand to 65 and over and people that become disabled. i want to live with that on the understanding that what we need is a permanent proposal and the

next few months. with that, i move it. >> my only concern is exclusion. the pre-k. if you're going to run a billy ran the first pilot, it should be run the same. the to exclude one group. >> of the thinking is that there is a lot of consideration to way. what is not putting too many medallions toward sales to quickly before we have a long- term solution. >> you're still going to manage it, aren't you? >> no. if we open the pilot program up, anyone can sell them at allen which they currently do not have the sale writes for. they can get 80% of the revenue with the city getting 15. the argument here, to meet, and the main policy is for the pilot

program approved or strongly show that selling medallions won't affect customer service. the only real policy and this i can see for expanding the pilot program is to allow drivers that a 65 and older or become disabled to get off the streets so they don't have to be risking their own and others' safety. essentially, we would be taking the medallion at some point and that would come back to the city for a full sale value and transferring the transfer right to the holder of that. i don't see the policy impetus for it and see the financial detriment to it. >> the pre-k owners are earning in the interim. >> we have a motion on the floor, but is there a second?

>> is there a second to the motion? i will second the motion. >> i have the same concern, still. >> any further discussion? i think we need a roll call on this one. [roll call vote] that is four votes, the item is adopted. >> to me, what is persuasive is the notion that the permanent program will be back here in a very short time, so that is a very persuasive argument. >> it would be appropriate for discussion to conduct a closed session.

>> second. >> they met in closed session to settle the matter with the director brinkman absent. the board also authorized the payment of two under and $63,000 for the beauty salon. there was no discussion of anticipated litigation. >> move not to disclose. >> second. >> thank you and happy holidays, everybody. have a good afternoon.

supervisor mar: good morning, everyone. welcome to the regular meeting of the transportation authority finance committee. my name is eric mar. i'm joined by supervisors elsbernd, kim, cohen, and farrell. i would also like to thank them -- take a moment to thank sfgtv for broadcasting as this moment. please call the next item. >> approve the minutes of the november 8, 2011 meeting. supervisor mar: without objection, approval of the minutes? do we open this up for public comment? is there anyone from the public at like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. without objection, let's move this forward. madam clerk, please call item 3.

>> recommend acceptance of the audit report for the fiscal year ended june 30, 2011. >> good morning, commissioners. this starts on page 5 of your package. as you all know, and fiscal policies of authority, we are required to undergo annual audits. the authority awarded an audit contract three years ago, and we have cynthia, a partner, here with us today to walk you through the fiscal audit report. i will turn it over to her. supervisor mar: 90. thanks, -- thank you. thanks for a great audit. >> thank you. as discussed on page 11 of your package and page one of the financial statement, the scope of our arctic includes the authorities and four major

governmental funds. construction management agency program, transportation for clean air, and a new fund this year, the vehicle registration fee for transportation improvement program. the program was established with passage last year, and the main source of information, which accounts for the program. the responsibility of these financial statements rests with the authority on this financial statements based on our audit. in the quarter -- we performed our audit in accordance with the generally accepted auditing standards. financial statements presented are without qualifications or exceptions and these financial statements are represented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. it is the best type of reported auditing you may receive from an

external auditor. in terms of the financial statements, i just want to highlight a few items. on page 21 and 23, the authority had asked us about the entity as a whole in the amount of $13.30 million, and in the sales tax program, the amount of $32.2 million. due primarily to its outstanding balance and the commercial paper notes, the authority has $150 million of these notes outstanding to pay for capital projects and other department of projects for organizations. the authority does not hold or retain title to these projects. there are authorities in the department organizations who are responsible for the assets. on page 23, i want to highlight another item. that the environmental funds by

balance have been recast, pursuant to a new accounting standards. the accounting standards are described on page 32 and 33 of the financial statements. for the authority, the classification district fund balance associated are with prescriptive forces for debt service capital projects, and they - and the fine balance in the sales tax program will be discussed earlier as it relates to the commercial paper balance -- the negative undefined ballots appear on page 57, we show a summary of the results of the financial statement and federal compliance audits. we did not note any significant internal control deficiencies or witnesses. with that, i am available for questions supervisor mar:. any questions, colleagues -- i am available for questions. supervisor mar: any questions,

colleagues? is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? >> normally, we would have the city agencies. we have access to thecontroller -- to the controller's office. i think -- i have been coming to the san francisco county transportation authority meetings for a long time, and in the general language of this audit, basically what this audit is saying is that without qualification, meeting shall not go into the details this way or whatever way, generally speaking, accepting that general principles are audited, she finds everything to be fair, whatever that means. we listen to the san francisco

county transportation authority at these meetings, as they spend thousands and thousands of dollars -- in many cases, billions of dollars. we would like to see how those monies are expended by giving out line items. bis has nothing to do directly with the audit, but it have something to do with the general sense of when such matters come before us here at this meeting. but i would like in the future -- i do not know how you are going to recommend this to the auditor -- that at least on the major projects where san francisco county transportation authority expends money, that we get some sort of narrative and

some sort of scale linked to evaluation to find out how to profit, moving, hopefully, to a better place. i say this because when you attend the metropolitan transportation commission meetings, they have a different system. i know it is going to be very difficult for you, the chair, to adjudicate or make up your mind on what i am saying, but if you reduce something and i can follow up with an e-mail -- if you review something and i can follow-up with an e-mail, how they go about that.

and that the constituents of san francisco have a better idea line item by line item on the major projects how our monies are expended. thank you very much. supervisor mar: thank you. is there anyone else in the public would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you for the i it. again, there is no deficiency for weakness and no recommendations for improvements. director, did you have follow- up? >> just mention that the aec will be at the regular physical meeting. there is no fiscal impact for this item appeared with that, this is an action item. >> colleagues, let's move this forward. without objection. supervisor mar: without objection appear next item. >> recommend authorizing the executive director to execute a member of agreement with the

treasure of the development authority in an amount not to exceed $100,000 for the fiscal year 2011-2012 operating budget and work plan to initiate implementation of the treasure island transportation program and authorizing the executive director to negotiate agreement terms and conditions. >> in october 2011 we brought before you a recommendation to designate an authority as the treasure island mobility management agency. the purpose is to integrate a comprehensive and integrated program to manage traffic on the island as the project develops. in october, you approved the authority for the tima and tida to work together for a program to put before the board by march, -- march 21, 2012. what i put before you today is the first step of the implementation.

for them to have a work plan and budget for the remaining part of fiscal year 2011-2012. over the next seven months, we anticipate we will be spending approximately $100,000 toward staff-led efforts and for construction efforts towards implementation of the project, for any opportunities that will be coming up in the next four months. the work plan -- administration could provisions would be for city attorney fees, outside attorney fees, and any consultants will be used for ground lighting purposes. we had an opportunity with the federal highway pilot program, and we anticipate submitting an application for that funding. we also anticipate the regional transportation plan with more opportunities.

in terms of fiscal impact, tida will be reimbursing the authority for 100% of all the costs. there will be no proposition k or authority of managed funds used toward the contract. we are recommending to authorize to execute in an amount not to exceed $100,000 for fiscal year 2011-2012 operating plan and work plan and to initiate the implementation of the treasure island transportation program and authorized the executive director to negotiate and create permit conditions. if you have any questions, i would be more than happy to answer supervisor mar:. -- i would be more than happy to answer. supervisor mar: treasure island mobility and management agency -- could you remind us what their responsibility is? >> why don't i pass this

question over to the deputy director for planning? >> good morning, commissioners. the mobility management agency is meant to implement the project as envisioned in the transportation plan of the treasure island development project. the transportation plan includes a multi modal plan, mobility improvements, including new services between treasure island and san francisco, and enhanced bus service between the island and san francisco and the ac transit service. to help pay for these and help manage automobile traffic, there will be a target program for peak periods of car travel. it would also be parking management to help also support the cost of the program, meet the transportation objectives of the item.

supervisor mar: what was the additional number of new residents on the island? >> i believe it is on the order of 7000 units. is that correct? 20,000 new residents in 7000 units. supervisor mar: so the congestion management of that is really important. thank you. colleagues, if there are no questions, let's open this up for public comment. >> this is to the people at home, that with the demise of the san francisco redevelopment agency, everything has changed. the citizens of san francisco

really do not know. using infrastructure financing districts -- using that, that money is on average with what the redevelopment agency would get. are around 20 cents on the dollar, something like that. but anyway, everything has changed. this is a moving target in the sense that those of us who have been participating and looking at an eir and more focused on the infrastructure, which is for agile and flooding liquefaction, stuff like that, and more importantly, condemned the

nation because people think that's treasure island is a treasure island like the treasure island that has been written in some stories. a lot of contamination exists now on treasure island where we have people living. so we now see that the san francisco county transportation authority -- that it is not doing a good job in san francisco involving themselves with treasure island, even though i know treasure island is part of district 6. but the san francisco county transportation authority is not doing a good job. we just had some discussion about issues in a previous meeting. my concern is tida, which was

formed to work with redevelopment -- tida should work with some other agencies, some other independent agencies. rather than expend the resources of san francisco county transportation agency or authorities tida. -- or authority. tida should work with some other agencies. they seem to have some money is left on spent. i do not know how they seem to get it exactly. thank you very much. supervisor mar: is there anyone else from the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i would just like to remind the committee that the item will be discussed tomorrow night. with that, again, i'm available to answer any more questions you may have.

supervisor mar: thank you. see no questions, let's move this item forward. thank you. please call the next item. >> next item, increasing the amount of the legal services contract with nossaman llp by $330,000. >> this item starts on page 37 of your package. this is a contract issued. the work of volume entity, we have special -- specialization designed by staff. currently on the authority legal team, we have the city attorney who advises the authority on routine contract items. we have co-bond counsel